Per "Cavendish." "Trick 1. A properly opens a five card suit headed by Knave in preference to a four card suit headed 13 by Ace, King. Trick 6. X properly refrains from drawing trump, fearing the whole Heart suit may be brought in against him. He leads a strengthening card of the suit Z has discarded, as to an adverse declaration of strength in trumps, Z properly discards his long suit. The strengthening Spade is an especial good lead here, as A has shown weakness in spades by discarding them. Trick 7. Z's best lead is doubtful, but we should prefer the return of the spade. A must hold the Ace of Clubs. Trick 8. Infamous play on the part of B. The Ace of Clubs being in A's hand, that card, with B's two trumps and King of Spades wins, the game. Trick 9. Badly played again by B. If he passes the Spade he must win the game, whether the remaining Spades are divided or not." Cavendish gives this hand as an illustration of "how not to do it," but whilst the play criticised by him is beneath notice, what he either expressly approves of or by his silence presumably acquiesces in may be well questioned. For instance at trick 6 B ought to have passed the 10 of Spades, as the Ace and Knave must both be behind him, and the chance is greatly in his partner's favour of having one or both of them. Cœlebs in his treatise gives a few of these mathematical calculations, which should ever be present to the mind of the Whist player, as they are of daily practical occurrence. E. J. NOTES TO HAND NO. 177. Trick 1. In the selection of competitive principles, we should always be regulated by the surrounding circumstances. This is not a question of a lead from a five or four suit, for on looking at the poverty of A's trumps, he should play a forward game making the greatest number of tricks he can in the usual course of play from his own hand, and should therefore lead his King and Ace of Clubs. Trick 6. Cavendish here acts upon his fears; what reason is there to suppose the whole Heart suit may be brought in against X? Why should not his partner have the Knave or, (as the fact was) the 10 guarded? Whist is essentially a game of inferences to be drawn from positive data, and as soon as any one acts upon his hopes or fears, or upon mere hypothesis, he is no longer theoretically speaking playing Whist, but a game approaching to speculation. X should therefore have drawn one of B's trumps, B should likewise pass the Spade, for if both the Ace and Knave be in Z's hand, he cannot possibly make more than one Spade. Trick 7. The Club suit not having yet been opened, I do not understand how Cavendish makes Z draw the conclusion that A has the best of it. But perhaps Cavendish possesses powers of clairvoyance that most people do not. B having now the long trump can afford to keep up his winning Spade King, and he was furthermore bound to pass here the Spade 9, to take the chance of X's being compelled to lead up to his partner in Clubs. E. J. NOTES TO HAND NO. 187. TRICK 6.-B is now playing for the game, for which he wants only one trick more out of his own hand. It is 5 to 4 that his partner has one or both of the remaining Spades. But, independently of mathematical calculation, here is a case in which the Whist maxim of what is technically termed "Placing the cards" must be brought to bear. B, by assuming one of these honours to be in A's hand wins the game. N.B. It is worth noting, simply as a curious result, that, provided there was no ridiculously bad play, had A improperly led originally the Spade Knave, the result of the game would not only have been the same--but more easily won; that is to say, in a plain, straightforward manner, without the exercise of the slightest ingenuity on the part of any player. Z's coup at trick 7, though it came off successfully, was useless. E. J. WHIST CHANCES. To the Editor of "THE WESTMINSTER PAPERS." SIR, The advisability or not of putting on King second hand having King and another only has been duly calculated. But calculation only, is not everything on Whist. Beyond figures in an original lead, if 3rd hand shows that he has nothing in the suit, this of itself is an important element in the conduct of the game. This information is not acquired, if the King be put on. The case frequently occurs, and I point this out for the use of those players who will not be guided by figures. J. M. Hearts trump. A to lead; against the best play can X and Z make 5 tricks? For the best analysis and solution we offer, as a prize, at the choice of the winner, Cavendish, Mr. Clay's work, Professor Pole's, or a Volume of these PAPERS. SOLUTION OF DOUBLE DUMMY PROBLEM, NO. 143. A and B, thus getting the odd trick in the event of Z not playing Ace of Clubs at trick 2, A also passes, and allows X to take the trick. A and B, must then either make 3 tricks in Hearts, or A gets in with the long Clubs; and if at trick 3, 4 or 5, X plays anything, but Spades, A and B also gets the odd trick thus: SAY AT TRICK 3. 9 B leads Diamonds; won by X. 12 and 13 won with Diamonds. If at trick 10 in this variation, X leads Hearts, the result is the same, as B then makes the trick in Hearts, two in Diamonds, and A the 13th trick with Clubs. Z LEADING. I Z leads Hearts; won by B. 2 B leads Diamonds; won by B. 4 Z leads Spades; won by Z. 3 B leads Clubs; won by Z. 5 Z leads Spades; won by Z. 6 Z leads Spades; won by A. 7 Z leads Spades; won by A. 8 A leads Diamonds; won by X. 9 X leads Clubs; won by A. 10 A leads Clubs; won by X. I'm not sure that I've improved the finish of this game by the alteration from what I first intended at trick 3, it's really immaterial, however, so far as the result is concerned. And as at trick 6, in the first game (A leading) so at trick 7 in this I make A take the remaining trick in Spades, to prevent Z ruffing. I consider this is the best for A at the time in both cases. And at all events if it is not so, nothing else would improve matters for him in the second game. WHY card clubs are broken up is a question that concerns all players. To those who observe, the reasons are not far to seek. No precautions can prevent an ineligible man being proposed, seconded, and elected; but if proposers and seconders did their duty honestly, without fear or favour, looking to the interest of the club alone, and not to the pleasure or convenience of the man proposed, we should have one of the weak points removed. We are all aware of the difficulty in giving a peremptory "No." As the new year commences, if we could only make up our minds to say "No," we should be perfectly certain that we should be much better off at the end of the year than we shall be if we do not say "No." A has had a good introduction to us. A desires to be a member of the Megatherium. On receipt of the letter of introduction we write to the introducer for full particulars of A, and getting a satisfactory answer we propose A, get him elected, and then find that we have been the means of introducing an undesirable member. His acquaintance with our friend he introduces is then found to have been but of short duration. They had met in good society in a country house, had lived five or six days together, they had each thought well of the other, each thought the other pleasant and nice; but neither knew more of the other than this. Of the means, life, habits, and antecedents of each, they were profoundly ignorant. Now, card club life is very difficult. A man who is quiet, subdued, and gentlemanly, away from the card table, is not the same man when he sits down to play. No one should be proposed at a card club except by a member who has seen the proposed play, and play for similar stakes to those of the club. We see men most amiably playing for silver threepennies who are exceedingly disagreeable when playing for £3. We have plenty of suspicion that the play at cards is not all fair. It is not very likely that a card sharper will be a disagreeable man; on the contrary, he must be of pleasant manners, and of an engaging disposition to succeed. People cannot cheat without the entry into a society where large sums are played for. The cheating, if cheating there were, in the Clayton and Jones case was very exceptional. If a man cheats when there is no money on, by which we mean much less money on than the player ordinarily played for, or if a man cheats by converting that into a 4 to 1 chance when the chance in his favour is 3 to 1 already, then this cheating, we say, is exceptional, and can only be from gross ignorance, or the love of cheating, per se. The ordinary card sharper being of good manners, good address, and slender means must lay his plans to get introduced into the society he desires. A Club member proposing a recent acquaintance to a club should bear this in his mind, that it is possible the man is using him for his own purposes, but having made up his mind to make the proposal, he should lay all the circumstances of the introduction before the committee, so that they may be on their guard and make enquiries for themselves. We remember proposing a club rule to the effect that any one put up for election should state the name of every club to which he had ever belonged, and failing to do so, except from oversight, of which the committee alone were to be the judges, the name after election should be erased from the list of members on proof of the omission. We believe this would be a salutary law, and give committees many more opportunities of rejecting unsuitable members. In card clubs we want money and manners. In some clubs there is a fearful want of the one, and in some an entire absence of the other. Each of these factors will break up any card club. At the present moment many clubs are suffering from these causes, and some we can see plainly are being broken up; and in each case the causes are those two we have named. It is a law as certain as that of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not, that if there is any laxity in payments at a card club, that club is doomed. It is not that card players are harsh one to another after a reverse of fortune. On the contrary we doubt if there is an instance on record where on being appealed to a winner would not give time for payment to a loser, or where a member would not help another to pay at a pinch. There is no more reason why a man should not borrow to pay a card debt than to pay a butcher's bill. But this much is certain, that the money should be paid the next day, and if the player does not do so, or if he has appealed to the forbearance of the winner, then the debtor has no right to play again until after the losses are discharged. The money must be paid out of his own resources or by borrowing. In the matter of manners, it should be clearly understood that every member is, in a club, on an equality. Each man in the club is entitled to equal rights, and the moment one man chooses to exhibit a superiority over another without protest, then we say the club is doomed. Let the superiority be exhibited towards one, it will soon be shown towards another, and our republic becomes an absolute government, and the club qua club no more exists. We cannot all be of one disposition. Just and due allowance must be made for all, and the good behaviour of each member can only be governed by his own sense of right and wrong. Committees can do little in the matter. The mere fact of a subject being brought before them does harm, so that we are thrown entirely on the good sense and good feeling of members to keep a club in order. But we know men generally do not get angry without some cause, although the cause is sometimes imaginary, and at others it is very ridiculous, and would not be dreamt of as a cause of offence, except when the players are excited by play and by losses, and the losses would not be so exciting if the stakes were smaller. We think that in all clubs the play is too high, and we know that the stakes are continually increased, with the result that some members are ruined and some retire. Almost all players can recall one or more instances where the play has been high; where players have been ruined or retired, and where the play has ceased or the club broken up. If it be a poor man who is ruined, it must be a source of regret to the other members to know that it has been their fault that the play has been so high. The rich man wants the play high because he does not get the same excitement from the game unless it is high. We can only, therefore, ask them to think of the pockets of their poorer fellows. If they have the privilege of being rich, let them exhibit their generosity by limiting their gambling, so that we begin the new year with the following advice :-Be careful whom you elect; be cautious how you behave; reduce your stakes, and keep your temper. AN EIRENICON. To the Editor of the WESTMINSTER PAPERS. SIR, It is well known that Whist-players are occasionally seized with an irresistible impulse, which compels them to take the most outrageous steps to lose the game, but I don't think it is equally well known, that this is probably caused by particular cards themselves being also liable to a similar epidemic; if this be the case, the players are not to blame. I have been led into this train of thought by the recent conduct of an Ace of Diamonds. Z discarded a Diamond, A led one, X played Qn, B won with the Kg and returned it. A trumped; second round of Diamonds, A trumped again; third round, A overtrumped Z; fourth round, twelfth trick, Z, A, and X all trumped. X then led the Ace of Diamonds. Now although one swallow doesn't make a summer and this by itself would not prove that the Ace of Diamonds was actively endeavouring to lose the game, and though it is possible to argue that X wished to revoke, from fiendish malignity, and that the Ace was not a principal, but merely X's agent, how do you account for this next instance? A few hands afterwards with the same pack of cards and different players, A leads the Kg of Diamonds which wins. A leads a small Diamond, B trumps-X gets in, removes B's other trumps and leads the Knave of Diamonds. A wanting one trick for game makes the Qn, the cards are thrown up and enquiries made for the Ace of Diamonds, and Z, who in the meantime had shuffled the cards, asserted he never had it; now these two occurrences taken together perpetrated by the same card-especially the last, when the Ace appears for purposes of annoyance to have removed himself temporarily from the pack-he was found there next deal-are very curious, and I am anxious to know whether similar coincidences have been noticed, and if so, whether the cards of some makers are more liable to such vagaries than others; if true, it is an important discovery. There may be forces in nature with which we are still unacquainted, and if it should turn out that we are not free agents, but that the cards occasionally take the law into their own hands, with how much better temper we might play; it once being admitted that these things are inevitable, all necessity for continually observing, if you had only done this or not done that, and so on ad infinitum, would be done away with in favour of the simple formula, “new cards, please!" We have come to the end of another year, let us take a new departure; we have long heard that cards will beat their makers, if we also recognize that they will occasionally take their own course in spite of us. surely we shall cease to revile each other, and become more tender to each other's feelings-if in addition wegive up looking at the last trick-for what is the use of looking at the last trick when the cards do as they like immediately afterwards?—then in my mental vision, I begin to see on the horizon, the dawning of the Millennium. PEMBRIDGE. PIQUET PUZZLE. After a hand has been played, can the score be elder hand 20 younger hand 6? Bad play, on either or both sides allowed. |